I have several disagreements with the premises of the article. However:

The familiar case for achieving social order through self-discipline takes for granted the energy and desire for life of the people involved, and so it is a case made mostly in the negative—a case against going too far rooted in a sense of what we have to lose. But when we are compelled to make a case for exertion and activity, we take nothing for granted. And so we have to make a deeper, warmer, argument—a case against giving up that is rooted in what we have to gain not just by living but by living well. This is ultimately a stronger argument for the good life, and so against both the pathologies of unruliness and those of inertness. It points toward the broad and beautiful “yes” for the sake of which an occasional stern and strict “no” is required.

That seems spot on.

I belong to a football officials association. I really love officiating and love the game of football. Often the tactics, rules, and actions of the association reflect a desire to root out bad officials and discourage all but the most dedicated from officiating. This makes sense to the context of thirty or forty years ago when there were lots of applicants and trainees and few slots to put them in. Now we have more slots to fill and far far fewer applicants. We need to change our thinking on this. It doesn't make sense to say - we desperately need officials AND if you're not going to put up with all this arbitrary BS then this isn't for you and hang it up.

Likewise with parenting, employment, civic engagement, etc.

I think the author is right that we have to make the case for these things. There are reasons for being a parent, being employed, engaging civically, etc.